Jump to content

[1.12.x] Far Future Technologies - August 23: new engine!


Nertea
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Nertea said:

The key new feature you will need to really learn is SystemHeat, which has a small tutorial here. https://github.com/post-kerbin-mining-corporation/SystemHeat/wiki. For atmospheric harvesting, SpaceDust has some additional things to learn as well, but that's not really a key feature. 

I actually find SystemHeat to be way more intuitive than Stock's heating system since SystemHeat provides a really nice GUI that lets you see what is producing heat, what is rejecting heat, and what the equilibrium temperature is. This makes it so much easier to plan how many radiators I need and what kind than what I was used to with the stock heating system.

 

Really the only thing that could be a bit easier is knowing how much LH2 to pack for some of the after burning engines, it would be nice if there was something telling you how close to an optimal ratio of fuel types you are. It is isn't hard to just keep slapping on LH2 tanks though until the dV starts to drop so it isn't a big deal at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Made a neat semi-torchship using the Z-Pinch fusion drives on afterburner mode! Masses in at ~630 tons, with ~350km/s of dV and a total burn time of somewhere north of 9 hours:

Spoiler

LEbrTnV.pngD22NFCK.png

Sadly, the engines are long enough that, even with autostrut to the frontal command module, they like to wobble around; also, the RCS thrusters are actually pretty low on fuel supply, so I might swap them out for ones using LH2.

Overall, loving the work you've done! The modelwork is amazing as always, the effects are beautiful, and the new resource system looks quite interesting!

Something I'm curious about: would it make sense for engines in afterburning mode to generate less waste heat? I feel like the LH2 being injected could be used to cool the engine beforehand (similarly to how chemical engines use their fuel for regenerative cooling), but perhaps the flow rates are too low for it to make any meaningful difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Starseeker said:

Something I'm curious about: would it make sense for engines in afterburning mode to generate less waste heat? I feel like the LH2 being injected could be used to cool the engine beforehand (similarly to how chemical engines use their fuel for regenerative cooling), but perhaps the flow rates are too low for it to make any meaningful difference.

Did some more playing around, and turns out I'd missed the fact that they do, in fact, generate significantly less waste heat when using LH2 as additional propellant. Oops! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2021 at 11:52 AM, CDSlice said:

I actually find SystemHeat to be way more intuitive than Stock's heating system since SystemHeat provides a really nice GUI that lets you see what is producing heat, what is rejecting heat, and what the equilibrium temperature is. This makes it so much easier to plan how many radiators I need and what kind than what I was used to with the stock heating system.

 

Really the only thing that could be a bit easier is knowing how much LH2 to pack for some of the after burning engines, it would be nice if there was something telling you how close to an optimal ratio of fuel types you are. It is isn't hard to just keep slapping on LH2 tanks though until the dV starts to drop so it isn't a big deal at all.

That's great, it was a key objective of the mod, to add complexity but make managing the complexity easier.

 

The second thing is harder to do anything about, but a couple things: 

1. In the VAB engine description you should be able to see flow rates, you can use these to calibrate your ship by looking at the total amount of D/He3.

2. All the fusion engines have a 3:2:x ratio where x is LH2. There are only 3 values of x, 200 ('normal' afterburning like fresnel, discovery mode 1), 400  (discovery afterburning) and 800 (ourobros). That should help you calibrate, if you solve the 200 case you can just multiply for the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it wanted, that the large fusion drive needs about 50.000 kW of cooling, while the large thermal cooling system supplies 1000 kW? Im just wondering that I have to use so much radiators to run it on full thrust or is it meant to use it at low throttle or short periods? I also tried other mods, but the best radiator also only supplies 6000 kW.

Edited by MrW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MrW said:

Is it wanted, that the large fusion drive needs about 50.000 kW of cooling, while the large thermal cooling system supplies 1000 kW? Im just wondering that I have to use so much radiators to run it on full thrust or is it meant to use it at low throttle or short periods? I also tried other mods, but the best radiator also only supplies 6000 kW.

Large Fusion Drive? If you mean the ''Frisbee'', which is an antimatter drive, there are options for increasing the length of the engine, if you make it full length, then It will not require radiators. If you mean engines like the Hammertong, Gas Mirror Drive or Zeta Pinch drive, well then you have to use many radiators. (Just IMO, and I'm no expert, so sry if I'm wrong)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, MrW said:

Is it wanted, that the large fusion drive needs about 50.000 kW of cooling, while the large thermal cooling system supplies 1000 kW? Im just wondering that I have to use so much radiators to run it on full thrust or is it meant to use it at low throttle or short periods? I also tried other mods, but the best radiator also only supplies 6000 kW.

Yes you do. 

It's worth noting that the required radiators are typically less than 1/4 of those that would be needed 'in reality'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HI @Nertea,

A quick question from me. I'm chasing down a unity crash in KSP 1.11 modded and the suggestion is that the issue could be related to either an outdated mod or graphical mod. It's proving difficult to pin down - taking 2-4 hours to crash typically, so bisecting the mods and repeatedly testing isn't very practical. 

As graphical mods are a possible source of the issue I thought I'd ask; Will this mod still be functional without Waterfall and Deployable Engines? I'm not suggesting either of them are responsible for the crashes I'm getting but I have to start somewhere, and if I can pull those mods without any significant impact then that would be a simple place to start. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Kielm said:

HI @Nertea,

A quick question from me. I'm chasing down a unity crash in KSP 1.11 modded and the suggestion is that the issue could be related to either an outdated mod or graphical mod. It's proving difficult to pin down - taking 2-4 hours to crash typically, so bisecting the mods and repeatedly testing isn't very practical. 

As graphical mods are a possible source of the issue I thought I'd ask; Will this mod still be functional without Waterfall and Deployable Engines? I'm not suggesting either of them are responsible for the crashes I'm getting but I have to start somewhere, and if I can pull those mods without any significant impact then that would be a simple place to start. 

those two mods don't cause any crashes or problems  in 1.11 at least at my install, I would recommend you to keep those and search for other mods with issues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

33 minutes ago, Starhelperdude said:

those two mods don't cause any crashes or problems  in 1.11 at least at my install, I would recommend you to keep those and search for other mods with issues

I'm kinda clutching at straws, hence the earlier post. Any suggestions from the below that may cause a Unity crash?

Spoiler

000_AT_Utils
000_ClickThroughBlocker
000_USITools
001_ToolbarControl
B9PartSwitch
BetterBurnTime
BonVoyage
CommunityCategoryKit
CommunityResourcePack
CommunityTechTree
ConfigurableContainers
CryoEngines
CryoTanks
deltavmap_core.ksp
DeployableEngines
DynamicBatteryStorage
FarFutureTechnologies
Firespitter
GroundConstruction
HeatControl
KAS
KerbalAlarmClock
KerbalAtomics
KerbalEngineer
KerbalInventoryForAll
KIS
KRnD
KSP-AVC
KSTS
MarkIVSystem
MechJeb2
ModuleManager.4.1.4.dll
ModuleManager.Physics
ModuleManager.TechTree
NavyFish
NearFutureAeronautics
NearFutureConstruction
NearFutureElectrical
NearFutureExploration
NearFutureLaunchVehicles
NearFutureProps
NearFuturePropulsion
NearFutureSolar
NearFutureSpacecraft
ScienceAlert
SpaceDust
Squad
SquadExpansion
StationPartsExpansionRedux
SystemHeat
SystemHeatConverters
SystemHeatFissionEngines
SystemHeatFissionReactors
SystemHeatHarvesters
UmbraSpaceIndustries
Waterfall
WildBlueIndustries

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kielm said:

HI @Nertea,

A quick question from me. I'm chasing down a unity crash in KSP 1.11 modded and the suggestion is that the issue could be related to either an outdated mod or graphical mod. It's proving difficult to pin down - taking 2-4 hours to crash typically, so bisecting the mods and repeatedly testing isn't very practical. 

As graphical mods are a possible source of the issue I thought I'd ask; Will this mod still be functional without Waterfall and Deployable Engines? I'm not suggesting either of them are responsible for the crashes I'm getting but I have to start somewhere, and if I can pull those mods without any significant impact then that would be a simple place to start. 

You can pull DeployableEngines without causing direct issues (there will be visual issues, I see KerbalAtomics in your list so that'll be weird). Pulling Waterfall with FFT present will crash the game. 

It could be worth investigating for any MiniAVCs and killing them with fire. 

 

Side note, I have recently been informed that the LqdHe3 to LqdDeuterium ratio is wrong. Don't know how this slipped through, it must be holdover from a very old version of the mod. A more realistic ratio is about 1L Deuterium to 4L He3 (currently it's 2L D to 3L He), because density of the resources is not accounted for.

Fixing this affects crafts somewhat. Should I actually do it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Rocket Witch said:

Do you know where this was available? In Nertea's development thread?

The last release of old-FFT was version 0.3.1 back for  KSP version 1.5 and can be found digging through historical github releases.

As a general note for anyone reading this, KSP version 1.8 is a breaking update both forward and backward for any mod with plugin components. As a general rule, try to keep your mods to the version of the game you're running. The person I quoted appears to be an advanced user when it comes to legacy version operation.

 

35 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Side note, I have recently been informed that the LqdHe3 to LqdDeuterium ratio is wrong. Don't know how this slipped through, it must be holdover from a very old version of the mod. A more realistic ratio is about 1L Deuterium to 4L He3 (currently it's 2L D to 3L He), because density of the resources is not accounted for.

Fixing this affects crafts somewhat. Should I actually do it?

AFAIK the fix will retroactively fix crafts using the combined D-He3 tanks in-editor (though not sure if the tank contents will adjust accordingly for in-flight). The biggest victims would be those that manually match the 2:3 ratio, and 1:4 is easier to remember anyway. I'll vote go for it.

Edited by Captain Sierra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Nertea said:

You can pull DeployableEngines without causing direct issues (there will be visual issues, I see KerbalAtomics in your list so that'll be weird). Pulling Waterfall with FFT present will crash the game. 

It could be worth investigating for any MiniAVCs and killing them with fire. 

 

Side note, I have recently been informed that the LqdHe3 to LqdDeuterium ratio is wrong. Don't know how this slipped through, it must be holdover from a very old version of the mod. A more realistic ratio is about 1L Deuterium to 4L He3 (currently it's 2L D to 3L He), because density of the resources is not accounted for.

Fixing this affects crafts somewhat. Should I actually do it?

 

yeah, for me I only builded vessels in the VAB because I didn't have the pc performance for actually playing my ''Near Future Install'', but I upgraded my pc today so I'm gonna try it out soon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Captain Sierra said:

AFAIK the fix will retroactively fix crafts using the combined D-He3 tanks in-editor (though not sure if the tank contents will adjust accordingly for in-flight). The biggest victims would be those that manually match the 2:3 ratio, and 1:4 is easier to remember anyway. I'll vote go for it.

The problem is ships in flight. Fuel in tanks would not be affected. However, engine consumption ratios are not saved with the ship, so ships would consume at 1:4 but have fuel for 2:3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Nertea said:

Side note, I have recently been informed that the LqdHe3 to LqdDeuterium ratio is wrong. Don't know how this slipped through, it must be holdover from a very old version of the mod. A more realistic ratio is about 1L Deuterium to 4L He3 (currently it's 2L D to 3L He), because density of the resources is not accounted for.

Fixing this affects crafts somewhat. Should I actually do it?

I vote yes. Messing up in-flight craft isn't nothing, but there aren't additional gameplay reasons to keep incorrect ratios here. Probably would need a big warning.

Edit to add: since these are controlled by config files, maybe a MM optional patch to preserve the incorrect ratios until they're ready?

Edited by danfarnsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nertea said:

It could be worth investigating for any MiniAVCs and killing them with fire. 

There were quite a few MiniAVCs. 

I'm unsure how that would cause crashing in the VAB after a unspecified time, but I will look out for those and kill them with burning in future. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Kielm said:

There were quite a few MiniAVCs. 

I'm unsure how that would cause crashing in the VAB after a unspecified time, but I will look out for those and kill them with burning in future. Thanks

I didn't catch that this was during gameplay, MiniAVC usually kills games on startup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rocket Witch said:

Do you know where this was available? In Nertea's development thread?

Just as an FYI that legacy version is literally nothing like the current version, Nertea scrapped everything and started from scratch so just be aware of that. Additionally it had this anti-matter generation system that if I remember correctly was kinda bugged out. Additionally it tried to utilize the stock heating system which was massively problematic, the huge heat out put of many of the engines was just way to much for the stock system to figure out especially in regards to various catch-up situations when coming out of an on-rails situation and explosions due to this were a very frequent concern. So if you are intending to use it on an older ksp version because you have a save game you don't want to abandon I would strongly caution against it because that old version was not very save friendly as frequent vessel loss was a thing.

Edited by Akira_R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, danfarnsy said:

 

I vote yes. Messing up in-flight craft isn't nothing, but there aren't additional gameplay reasons to keep incorrect ratios here. Probably would need a big warning.

Edit to add: since these are controlled by config files, maybe a MM optional patch to preserve the incorrect ratios until they're ready?

This'd probably be the best solution, yeah; switch it, but have an optional patch to un-switch it to preserve compatibility.

On another note: is there a particular reason the NSW tanks are 5 sub-tanks instead of 7? It feels a bit weird that there's so much empty space, and six-around-one has the same maximum diameter as four-around-one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...